tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 18 21:05:03 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Challenge: similar suffixes
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC Challenge: similar suffixes
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 00:05:01 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromQov on Tue, 16 Dec 1997 02:22:35 -0800 (PST))
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 02:22:35 -0800 (PST)
>From: Qov <[email protected]>
>
>At 21:16 97-12-15 -0800, SuStel wrote:
>
>}>bIpujmo' QaghlIjmo' bIbIQ
>}>(Because you are weak, you are sad because of your mistake.)
>}>[That last one was tough. I hope I came close.]
>}
>}This is the second double {-mo'} sentence I've seen in response to Qov's
>}challenge so far, and I must say it looks icky to me. I can see why Scott
>}had trouble with it. It doesn't break any known rules, but it doesn't seem
>}to want to do that. You're giving two causes in two different formats: verb
>}and noun. These are two causes of the same event, yet you cannot join them
>}with any sort of conjunction.
>
>I quite liked it. I see the acceptable sentence {QaghlIjmo' bI'IQ} with the
>acceptable clause {bIpujmo'} explaining the reason for the second sentence.
>bIpujbe'chugh QaghlIjmo' bI'IQbe'. HoSwI' nuQbe' QaghDaj. If both the noun
>and the verb were indicated as caues of the same effect it would certainly
>be icky, as occured with the one who tried to fit all ten suffixes into one
>sentence. :)
I can see the difficulty. I'm not completely sure Klingon would sweat such
a detail, but maybe. I would put both -mo's in a sentence thusly (maybe I
should say I have a sentence that has one -mo' and then one mo'?)
verenganmo' Qaghmo' HoD, ghaH naDHa' ta'.
The Emperor discommended the captain because he (the captain) made a
mistake because of the Ferengi.
~mark